It amazes me when people don't realize the equipment (computers) they work on AT WORK do not belong to them. My old HR department was very clear on company policy during orientation - and IT would send out reminders they would be doing system sweeps

We had one guy who'd filled close to 90% of his system with music from Nabster (back when it first came out). IT came out to see why it was running so slow and almost died! Guy could not understand the big deal and was NOT happy at getting written up.

Then there were the completely inappropriate emails people would forward. Every quarter there would be a "mass let go" and they'd all be surprised

I once had a friend forward an inappropriate email (silly joke with related animated images of unclothed female anatomy) to my work e-mail address - AT A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY. Seriously? I replied with a very stern reminder that silly stuff needs to go to the PERSONAL email, not the GOVERNMENT WORK email. He never did it again. :-)

Logged

What part of v_e = \sqrt{\frac{2GM}{r}} don't you understand? It's only rocket science!

"The problem with re-examining your brilliant ideas is that more often than not, you discover they are the intellectual equivalent of saying, 'Hold my beer and watch this!'" - Cindy Couture

I have to question the judgment of Undercover Boss in using the footage. I'd like to know WHEN he signed his consent form, before or after he knew he was being fired on national TV. Past weeks have shown people making similar statements, and the boss reacting with understanding. A lot of people who hate their jobs hate them because they're frustrated with unreasonable demands (on the same episode was a worker who said that they never get breaks!) or because they weren't trained properly. I agree something needed to be done, but I think she handled the situation improperly. It didn't leave me with a warm cozy feeling about Boston Market.

I suspect there was a lot more that didn't make it on the show. I don't know how much time the bosses spend in particular positions, but it is probably at least one day. An employee who says he hates customers but is otherwise all right will pass. An employee whose attitude problem lasts all shift, bleeds into his relationships with fellow employees, and causes him to do a lousy job won't survive an encounter with the boss.

For me, it was what I read came after.

"'I would tell them my attitude would change but I didn't think it was that terrible,' he said, out of earshot of Bittorf after the big reveal." and "'It's not wrong of me to hate people,' he said."

Having seen a few episodes of that show, I'm surprised it doesn't cause more people to get fired.

I saw one episode (I think it was from "Yankee Candle"?) where there was an employee who was often required to do a craft with children. He said that he frequently wanted to kick/punch/strangle his customers, and acted incredibly hostile during the demonstration. He also swore and made several threats against the company during his segment. As far as I can remember, the boss just asked him to be a part of a committee improving the customer experience at the stores. I actually hope he was fired off-camera.

"'I would tell them my attitude would change but I didn't think it was that terrible,' he said, out of earshot of Bittorf after the big reveal." and "'It's not wrong of me to hate people,' he said."

I agree he was an unpleasant person, and I don't blame them for letting him go. What bothered me, though, was that they went ahead and used the footage. It's humiliating enough to be fired...you don't have to put it on TV so that future employers will remember the worker's name and face. It's understandable that he got defensive and said some idiot stuff at the end. Of course he didn't think his attitude was that much of a problem; would it have killed the 'boss' to have spent some time trying to guide a foolish young man? Instead, he was just a disposable part to her...get rid of him, replace him with another widget, there's always another widget out there. I thought she was more interested in portraying herself as a tough guy, and since she wasn't the real boss, she may well have the job of corporate hatchetman. I also found it squicky how she made the job offer to the third worker...we don't want you to leave, therefore we're going to pressure you on TV to stay...and our wonderful job offer will require you to move away from your friends and family. The woman acted happy...but I bet she knew better than to say, 'I don't want to move' on camera if she wasn't ready to resign her job. I don't doubt in the least that the company was pressuring workers not to take their breaks, fancy software or not. A good manager doesn't NEED fancy software to notice if a worker needs a break, and really, why would they develop or buy break-scheduling software if it wasn't a widespread problem?

I have to question the judgment of Undercover Boss in using the footage. I'd like to know WHEN he signed his consent form, before or after he knew he was being fired on national TV. Past weeks have shown people making similar statements, and the boss reacting with understanding. A lot of people who hate their jobs hate them because they're frustrated with unreasonable demands (on the same episode was a worker who said that they never get breaks!) or because they weren't trained properly. I agree something needed to be done, but I think she handled the situation improperly. It didn't leave me with a warm cozy feeling about Boston Market.

The premise of Undercover Boss is a meta-reality show, so all employees would sign releases before any filming or they likely wouldn't be scheduled to work that day. I doubt employees can be forced to appear on camera if they aren't willing. Everyone knows they are being filmed all the time they are with the trainee. That's the point of the show.

There's nothing wrong with a little humility. Sounds like this isn't the place for him, but rather than get himself a job where he doesn't have to put up with 'demands', he badmouths the people putting food on his table. On camera. It's not the job of the Exec to guide this man, it's her job to remove him before he ends up on Youtube. He was hoist by his own petard.

The premise of Undercover Boss is a meta-reality show, so all employees would sign releases before any filming or they likely wouldn't be scheduled to work that day. I doubt employees can be forced to appear on camera if they aren't willing. Everyone knows they are being filmed all the time they are with the trainee. That's the point of the show.

There's nothing wrong with a little humility. Sounds like this isn't the place for him, but rather than get himself a job where he doesn't have to put up with 'demands', he badmouths the people putting food on his table. On camera. It's not the job of the Exec to guide this man, it's her job to remove him before he ends up on Youtube. He was hoist by his own petard.

My point exactly-if he signed the release BEFORE, he didn't exactly consent to be fired on network TV.Other execs on Undercover Boss did, however, guide erring employees, including referring them for additional training so that they wouldn't make their mistakes again, rather than firing them. I don't see that it's the JOB of an exec to treat people as disposable, although I suspect it is part of Boston Market culture. Which is why I think she did far more damage to her precious brand than an employee Female Dog in the back room.

From the en.wikipedia for undercover boss: "Undercover Boss has been criticised as a "reality show" for presenting scenarios and situations which rarely happen to employees in real workplaces and are in fact dramatic tricks.[17] Others point out that CEOs in real life workplaces do not typically go out of their way to provide gifts and other extra benefits to front-line employees at the expense of the bottom line"

So that leaves me wondering if the employee really was one.. or if the firing and reason for firing was just a ratings ploy. I would take a nice chunk o cash to do either: pretend to be a bad employee who gets fired or pretend to be an employee.. who says bad things and gets fired.

Logged

"I feel sarcasm is the lowest form of wit." "It is so low, in fact, that Miss Manners feels sure you would not want to resort to it yourself, even in your own defense. We do not believe in retaliatory rudeness." Judith Martin

From the en.wikipedia for undercover boss: "Undercover Boss has been criticised as a "reality show" for presenting scenarios and situations which rarely happen to employees in real workplaces and are in fact dramatic tricks.[17] Others point out that CEOs in real life workplaces do not typically go out of their way to provide gifts and other extra benefits to front-line employees at the expense of the bottom line"

So that leaves me wondering if the employee really was one.. or if the firing and reason for firing was just a ratings ploy. I would take a nice chunk o cash to do either: pretend to be a bad employee who gets fired or pretend to be an employee.. who says bad things and gets fired.

Or if, in fact, they scouted out the possibilities beforehand and decided they wanted this guy gone. Hard for him to fight it if the big boss fires him on camera!

Logged

You are only young once. After that you have to think up some other excuse.

I haven't been watching Undercover Boss lately but I remember one episode in the first season where the boss sat down with a woman on the phones who was absolutely horrible at dealing with customers. The boss met with her, told her how disappointed he was with her performance and put her on a program/course to improve. The little blurb at the end where they picture everyone and have words up with an update indicated that she'd failed to improve and was fired.

I think that was an appropriate way to do it. It is kind of drama inducing to fire the guy on camera, I think.

But honestly, I don't know how this show works anymore. I know I'd be suspicious if someone showed up at my workplace with cameras in tow, talking about filming a documentary about so and so getting back into the work force/changing careers, etc.

Logged

After cleaning out my Dad's house, I have this advice: If you haven't used it in a year, throw it out!!!!.

My husband asked me if I would recognize my company's CEO if he did something like this. I said of course I would. He asked how I knew. I told him that it was because our CEO is French and has a very distinct accent.

Logged

When angels go bad, they go worse than anyone. Remember, Lucifer was an angel. ~The Marquis De Carabas

I haven't been watching Undercover Boss lately but I remember one episode in the first season where the boss sat down with a woman on the phones who was absolutely horrible at dealing with customers. The boss met with her, told her how disappointed he was with her performance and put her on a program/course to improve. The little blurb at the end where they picture everyone and have words up with an update indicated that she'd failed to improve and was fired.

I think that was an appropriate way to do it. It is kind of drama inducing to fire the guy on camera, I think.

But honestly, I don't know how this show works anymore. I know I'd be suspicious if someone showed up at my workplace with cameras in tow, talking about filming a documentary about so and so getting back into the work force/changing careers, etc.

I would be too - first thing I would do is look up the executives to see if the "new" person was one of them. Even if it is legit - a reality show about getting back in the workforce I would still be on my best behavior - afterall i am being filmed and it is going to be shown somewhere. I don't want to make a fool of myself where the world can see.

I haven't been watching Undercover Boss lately but I remember one episode in the first season where the boss sat down with a woman on the phones who was absolutely horrible at dealing with customers. The boss met with her, told her how disappointed he was with her performance and put her on a program/course to improve. The little blurb at the end where they picture everyone and have words up with an update indicated that she'd failed to improve and was fired.

I think that was an appropriate way to do it. It is kind of drama inducing to fire the guy on camera, I think.

But honestly, I don't know how this show works anymore. I know I'd be suspicious if someone showed up at my workplace with cameras in tow, talking about filming a documentary about so and so getting back into the work force/changing careers, etc.

I would be too - first thing I would do is look up the executives to see if the "new" person was one of them. Even if it is legit - a reality show about getting back in the workforce I would still be on my best behavior - afterall i am being filmed and it is going to be shown somewhere. I don't want to make a fool of myself where the world can see.

Exactly. He knew they were filming. You have to wonder how he would behave when he was not on camera.

A similar social-engineering problem: I remember, years ago, hearing a brief story on NPR's "All Things Comsidered" about the woman who gets the people shown on "Cops" to sign releases for broadcast of their images. She said that, surprisingly, they have very few refusals - the arrestees seem to find it terribly cool that they're going to be on TV!

My husband asked me if I would recognize my company's CEO if he did something like this. I said of course I would. He asked how I knew. I told him that it was because our CEO is French and has a very distinct accent.

Our CEO is orange.

He spends a LOT of time in his tanning bed that is in his penthouse office.